...friendly, mutually favoring relations, apparently in the most human relations imaginable. Subsequently, however, it turns out that these relations are the most hostile, that wages are in
* — parties, sides. Ed.

10
V. I. LENIN

Thus, economists sometimes, as an exception, defend the appearance of the human in economic relations — especially when they attack some particular abuse — but most often they take these relations precisely in their clearly expressed distinction from the human, in their strictly economic sense.

Not being conscious of this contradiction and wavering from side to side, they do not go beyond its limits.

Marx sets aside Edgar's reproach (Edgar — from the "Literary Gazette") that Proudhon makes a "deity" out of "justice" by saying that Proudhon's work of 1840 does not stand at the "standpoint* of German development of 1844" (39) [36], that this is a general fault of the French, that one must also remember Proudhon's reference to the negation that realizes justice — a reference that allows one to dispense with this absolute in history as well (um auch dieses Absoluten in der Geschichte uberhoben zu sein — at the end of p. 39).

"If Proudhon does not arrive at this consistent conclusion, he owes this to the sad circumstance that he was born a Frenchman rather than a German" (39-40) [36].

* — point of view. Ed.

11

What follows is Critical Commentary No. II (40-46) [37-41], which very strikingly sets forth the already nearly formed view of Marx concerning the revolutionary role of the proletariat.

... "Political economy up to now, proceeding from the fact of wealth created by the movement of private property allegedly for the benefit of peoples, arrived at an apology for private property. Proudhon proceeds from the opposite fact, sophistically veiled in political economy, from the fact of poverty created by the movement of private property, and arrives at conclusions negating private property. The first critique of private property naturally proceeds from that fact in which the contradictory essence of private property manifests itself in the most tangible, most glaring, most immediately revolting form to human feeling—from the fact of poverty, destitution" (41) [37].

"The proletariat and wealth—these are opposites. As such, they form a single whole. Both are engendered by the world of private property. The whole question is what definite position each of these two elements occupies within the framework of antagonism. It is insufficient merely to declare them two sides of a single whole. Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to preserve its own existence, and thereby also the existence of its opposite—the proletariat. This is the positive side of the antagonism, private property satisfied within itself. Conversely, the proletariat as proletariat is compelled to abolish itself, and thereby also the opposite which conditions it—private property—which makes it the proletariat. This is the negative side of the antagonism, its unrest within itself, the private property that is abolished and abolishing itself.

The propertied class and the class of the proletariat represent one and the same human self-alienation. But the first class feels itself satisfied and affirmed in this self-alienation, perceives alienation as evidence of its own power, and possesses in it the semblance of human existence. The second class, on the other hand, feels itself destroyed in this alienation, sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of inhuman existence. This class, to use Hegel's expression, is within its state of abjection an indignation against this abjection, an indignation that is necessarily aroused in this class by the contradiction between its human nature and its life situation, which is an open, decisive, and all-embracing negation of that very nature.

Thus, within the entire antagonism, the private property owner represents the conservative side, the proletarian—the destructive side. From the first emanates action directed toward preserving the antagonism, from the second—action directed toward its destruction.

It is true that private property in its economic movement itself impels itself toward its own abolition, but it does so only through a development that is independent of it, unconscious, occurring against its will and conditioned by the nature of the object itself, only through the engendering of the proletariat as proletariat—this poverty conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, this dehumanization conscious of its dehumanization and therefore abolishing itself. The proletariat carries out the sentence that private property, in engendering the proletariat, passes on itself, just as it carries out the sentence that wage labor passes on itself, producing the wealth of others and its own poverty. Upon victory, the proletariat in no way becomes the absolute side of society, because it achieves victory only by abolishing itself and its opposite. With the victory of the proletariat, both the proletariat itself disappears and the opposite which conditions it—private property.

If the socialist writers recognize this world-historical role in the proletariat, then this

2) the absolute spirit he makes the creator of history only in appearance (nur zum Schein), only post festum*, only in consciousness.
Bruno eliminates this half-heartedness:
"On one side stands the mass as passive, unspirittualized, unhistorical,
As the 1st example of "the campaigns of absolute criticism against the mass," Marx cites B. Bauer's relation to
"One of the chief tasks of absolute criticism consists above all in giving all questions of contemporary times
Like all other original manifestations of absolute criticism, this method represents a repetition
* — after the fact. Ed.

22

V. I. LENIN

philosophy could, of course, like a catechism, have in reserve a ready answer to each of my questions" (134-135) [99].
In the § 2a written by Engels (..."'Criticism' and Feuerbach. Condemnation of Philosophy"...) — pp. 138-142 [101-104] — we find warm praise of Feuerbach. Apropos the attacks of "criticism" on philosophy, its opposition to the actual wealth of human relations, the "boundless content of history," the "significance of man," and so forth and so forth, right up to the phrase: "the secret of the system is revealed" — Engels says:
"But who then revealed the secret of the 'system'?
"the actual wealth of human relations, the boundless content of history, the struggle of history, the struggle of the mass against spirit," etc., etc.
After man has been recognized as essence, as the basis of all human activity and all human relations, one thing alone

23

The true founder of English materialism—

With Hobbes, materialism becomes one-sided, menschenfeindlich, mechanisch*.

Hobbes systematized Bacon, but did not develop (begrundet) his fundamental principle more closely: the origin of knowledge and ideas from the world of sensation (Sinnenwelt)—p. 203 [143].

As Hobbes destroyed

The French "civilized" (205) [144] the materialism of the English.

With

"As

From the premises of materialism nothing is easier to deduce than socialism (the restructuring of the sensuous world—

* — hostile to humanity, mechanical. Ed.

32
V. I. LENIN

to connect private and general interest—to destroy the antisocial Geburtsstatten* of crime, etc.).

On pp. 209-211 [147-148] Marx gives in a note (petit across 2 pages) excerpts

from

From the subsequent §§-s worth noting the following passage:

"The dispute between

* — sources. Ed.
** — the most popular, though also the most superficial. Ed.

33

* - thus! Ed.
38
V. I. LENIN

"In this way Rudolf unconsciously expressed a long-discovered secret — that human misery itself, infinite wretchedness, forced to accept charity, must serve

Numerous charitable unions in Germany, numerous charitable societies in France, numerous charitable quixotic enterprises in England, concerts, balls, theatrical performances, dinners for the benefit of the poor, even collections of donations for those who have suffered misfortunes — all of this has no other meaning whatsoever" (309-310) [212].

And Marx cites from Eugène Sue:

"Ah, madame! It is not enough to dance for the benefit of these poor Poles... let us be philanthropists to the very end... let us now go

On pp. 312-313 citations
P. 313 [215] and ff. against

39